Spec review loop

PM writes the spec, agent implements, you review in In Progress — product workflow recipe.

Goal: separate shaping work from implementation. You use Conversations to draft a spec, create a task, assign an agent, and review the output without losing context.

---

Scenario

You are a PM or founder preparing a feature. You want to challenge your own assumptions before an agent writes code, then review the implementation like a code reviewer.

Before: one giant prompt in a chat tool, no audit trail.

After: Plan-mode notes → task with acceptance criteria → agent run → human review on the board.

---

Copy-paste task example

Title: Add workspace-level export for task board (CSV)

Description:

User story: workspace admin exports all tasks for reporting

Acceptance criteria:
- Export button on Tasks list view (not board)
- CSV columns: id, title, status, priority, assignee, created_at
- Respects current project filter if one is active
- Empty workspace → download with header row only

Out of scope: PDF, scheduled exports, cross-workspace export

---

Steps

1. Think through the feature

   Open Conversations → Think. Ask Notiky to challenge scope and list risks:

   We’re adding CSV export for tasks. What are we forgetting? Push back on scope creep.

   Capture decisions in the thread before you write the task.

2. Draft the spec in Plan mode

   Switch to Plan. Ask for a task title, description, and acceptance criteria — still without mutating the board if you prefer control.

   Copy the output into your task draft, or switch to Do if you want the agent to create the task directly.

3. Create and refine the task

   Open Tasks → New Task. Paste the spec. Tighten acceptance criteria until a stranger could verify done/not-done.

4. Assign to an implementation agent

   Assign to an agent on a runtime with repo access — e.g. Claude Code or Cursor Agent on your co-founder’s machine.

   
5. Track in In Progress

   While the agent runs, keep the task in In Progress. Subscribe teammates or add yourself as assignee for review if your workflow uses dual ownership.

   
6. Review like a PR

   When the agent marks progress or completes, review diffs locally or in your usual git flow. Comment on the task:

   • “Missing empty-state test”
   • “Please rename column header to Created at (UTC)”

   Re-assign or move back to In Progress if changes are needed.

7. Ship and document

   Move to Done. Link the conversation in a task comment so future readers know why the feature exists.

---

Mode cheat sheet

Phase	Mode	Why
Explore	Think	Challenge assumptions
Spec	Plan	Draft tasks without executing
Create task	Do or manual	Board becomes source of truth
Implement	Agent on task	Execution on runtime
Review	Human on task	Comments + status

---

Spec was too vague and agent guessed wrong

Tighten acceptance criteria. Add an “Out of scope” section. See Tasks tips.

Review takes longer than implementation

Normal for early agent workflows. Shorter tasks with narrower scope improve review speed.

Need legal or security review

Assign to a human first for review, then to an agent for implementation — two tasks, clear order.

---

Related

Decision → task → agent

Conversations

Tasks

Bugfix while away